I'd like to get some ideas for the MWiF tutorial. Many of us here already know WiF but the wider gaming community who buy the game need to learn about impulses and 'flipping' and all the other good stuff that makes MWiF great, What we need is a tutorial that will get them 'over the hump' of learning the rules and into enjoying the game.
So I'm looking for some collective wisdom here.
* What other computer games have good tutorials?
* What parts of those tutorial were the most helpful?
* What tutorials didn't work ('Europa Universalis I' comes to mind)
* What was wrong with those tutorials ( No examples of play. Large slabs of contiguous tortured text. Not written by a native English speaker)
Here's the place to unload about your best and worst learning experiences.
Please provide examples if possible. Don't just say that a game sucks - tell us why it sucked and how it could have been better.
MWiF Tutorial
Moderator: Shannon V. OKeets
MWiF Tutorial
/Greyshaft
RE: MWiF Tutorial
ORIGINAL: Greyshaft
* What tutorials didn't work ('Europa Universalis I' comes to mind)
* What was wrong with those tutorials ( No examples of play. Large slabs of contiguous tortured text. Not written by a native English speaker)
Civilization4 - When you started the tutorial you had to follow it precisely. If you built a road before the tutorial wanted you to do, you would "freeze" the tutorial in such a manner that you had to restart it.
Another thing that would be nice would be the ability to save the tutorial, so that you do not have to play through it all in once.
"Hun skal torpederes!" - Birger Eriksen
("She is to be torpedoed!")
("She is to be torpedoed!")
RE: MWiF Tutorial
I think that some of the RTS games have quite good tutorials.
You get to play around on your own with a limited set of units. Korsun pocket also had something similiar to this if I recall correctly.
The tutorial could be playing out part of the civil war in spain.
- Some units moving around and performing an assault.
- Next could show the effect of groundstrike and disrupted units.
- Next would be to move some units around and show the effect of supply, for example a unit could be overrunned
- After an attack that a ground support mission with an airtoair battle, possily using the blitz table and breakthrough effect.
- Then reorganise with an HQ.
That would cover most of the land and air rules.
- Next chapter could try out the naval rules.
- After that production and partisans.
- and specialist units (subs, Para, Marine, artillery, engineers)
You get to play around on your own with a limited set of units. Korsun pocket also had something similiar to this if I recall correctly.
The tutorial could be playing out part of the civil war in spain.
- Some units moving around and performing an assault.
- Next could show the effect of groundstrike and disrupted units.
- Next would be to move some units around and show the effect of supply, for example a unit could be overrunned
- After an attack that a ground support mission with an airtoair battle, possily using the blitz table and breakthrough effect.
- Then reorganise with an HQ.
That would cover most of the land and air rules.
- Next chapter could try out the naval rules.
- After that production and partisans.
- and specialist units (subs, Para, Marine, artillery, engineers)
RE: MWiF Tutorial
Actually I had EU1 down as a good tutorial example. While obviously dozens of issues were not covered, it easily introduced players to the game. The rest was more an issue of missing documentation (manual). The best example to my mind of what can go wrong with tutorials is the simple lack of any in later Paradox products which made entering the game pretty slow for experienced players (it must have been devastating fo new ones).
Just a general note, it might be good to make multiple tutorials for MWiF, essentially a land combat one (a Barbarossa tutorial), a naval combat one (a Guadalcanal tutorial) and finally one that requires use of the production system... The appropriate scenarios already exist in WiF FE, now we have to build a tutorial around it.
The relatively small tutorial scenarios would also make saving them (terje439's comment) less important.
Just a general note, it might be good to make multiple tutorials for MWiF, essentially a land combat one (a Barbarossa tutorial), a naval combat one (a Guadalcanal tutorial) and finally one that requires use of the production system... The appropriate scenarios already exist in WiF FE, now we have to build a tutorial around it.
The relatively small tutorial scenarios would also make saving them (terje439's comment) less important.
Marc aka Caran... ministerialis
RE: MWiF Tutorial
Good tutorial HTTR.
Very bad one Uncommon Valour!!
Very bad one Uncommon Valour!!
-
Shannon V. OKeets
- Posts: 22165
- Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
- Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
- Contact:
RE: MWiF Tutorial
I have an idea - not well developed yet, but perhaps you can help in that regard.
Have each tutorial start with a game in progress (one of them starts at the very beginning of a game, of course). The tutorial essentially loads a game in progress. Under tutorial mode, the player is replaying a game that has already been played by someone else. He does not have to enter any orders or move any units, etc.. The player is just a watcher of a previously played game.
Tutorial mode includes an additional information box/form on the screen that describes what is being done (keystrokes, mouse moves), why it is being done (tactics, strategy), and other controls. The other controols would let the player go backwards or forwards, the speed of the replay, and skip over sections (fast forward or fast backward).
This is not well thought out, but it addresses the concerns about: (1) not having to tediously go through a tutorial keystroke by keystroke, and (2) spliting the tutorial into sections that focus on one or more specific aspects of game play.
Have each tutorial start with a game in progress (one of them starts at the very beginning of a game, of course). The tutorial essentially loads a game in progress. Under tutorial mode, the player is replaying a game that has already been played by someone else. He does not have to enter any orders or move any units, etc.. The player is just a watcher of a previously played game.
Tutorial mode includes an additional information box/form on the screen that describes what is being done (keystrokes, mouse moves), why it is being done (tactics, strategy), and other controls. The other controols would let the player go backwards or forwards, the speed of the replay, and skip over sections (fast forward or fast backward).
This is not well thought out, but it addresses the concerns about: (1) not having to tediously go through a tutorial keystroke by keystroke, and (2) spliting the tutorial into sections that focus on one or more specific aspects of game play.
Steve
Perfection is an elusive goal.
Perfection is an elusive goal.
RE: MWiF Tutorial
What's this ?RTS games
Europa Universalis ?EU1
And this, what's this ?HTTR
Please, explain your acronyms.
-
SamuraiProgrmmr
- Posts: 416
- Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:15 am
- Location: NW Tennessee
RE: MWiF Tutorial
I mentioned this several months ago, but I will reiterate it here to generate discussion.
I think that several tutorials are in order. They should start with very small focus and slowly enlarge in scope. As they enlarge in scope, it might be very useful to automate some of the details so the 'lesson' will be easier to think about for the user.
Many of these will be insanely simple, BUT if the user will bite of small chunks, they will be able to digest them better.
The user should be graded after the tutorial based on the desired and likely outcomes. This will be more important in the more complex tutorials. Generic suggestions would be useful. These suggestions might be along the lines of:
* You should spread your defenses out more to prevent a breakthrough.
* You should concentrate your defenses more to be more effective.
For example:
A tutorial with a land combat
A tutorial with a land combat with air support.
A tutorial with a land combat with air and HQ support.
A tutorial with movement ending up in combat.
A tutorial with air to air combat.
A tutorial with offensive movement that results in several land combats and perhaps air to air combat on one of them.
A tutorial with defensive movement to prepare for an impending attack.
A tutorial with naval combat.
A tutorial with naval combat with air factors.
A tutorial with naval movement.
A tutorial with naval movement resulting in perhaps several battles in several sea areas.
Tutorials that demonstrate some of the mechanics of the game such as ending the turn. These would not require the user to do very much. Perhaps it would be useful to ask the user questions such as 'In this situation, what rolls of the dice will end the turn."
A tutorial that introduces production.
A tutorial that introduces production gearing limits.
A tutorial that allows the user to do the production and the rest of the game plays itself. (THIS MIGHT BE AN INTERESTING SUBGAME.)
There might also be tutorials that allow the user to manage:
* all of the land units while the navy and air is automatic.
* all of the air units while the navy and land is automatic.
* all of the naval units while the air and land is automatic.
Again, some of these might be intersting subgames.
To me, the most effective tutorials have been Starcraft, Warcraft, and Rise Of Nations. Remember that the entire single player 'game' of Starcraft was a tutorial comprising 27 lessons and 3 final exams. When you finished it, you had the mechanics down and were ready to hone your skills.
This game is considerably more detailed than those. I don't think you can have too many tutorials. (Of course spending the resources to create them is another decision.) I think the success of this game in spreading to non-WIFfers will depend on the tutorials.
I hope these ideas are helpful, even if you choose another path.
I think that several tutorials are in order. They should start with very small focus and slowly enlarge in scope. As they enlarge in scope, it might be very useful to automate some of the details so the 'lesson' will be easier to think about for the user.
Many of these will be insanely simple, BUT if the user will bite of small chunks, they will be able to digest them better.
The user should be graded after the tutorial based on the desired and likely outcomes. This will be more important in the more complex tutorials. Generic suggestions would be useful. These suggestions might be along the lines of:
* You should spread your defenses out more to prevent a breakthrough.
* You should concentrate your defenses more to be more effective.
For example:
A tutorial with a land combat
A tutorial with a land combat with air support.
A tutorial with a land combat with air and HQ support.
A tutorial with movement ending up in combat.
A tutorial with air to air combat.
A tutorial with offensive movement that results in several land combats and perhaps air to air combat on one of them.
A tutorial with defensive movement to prepare for an impending attack.
A tutorial with naval combat.
A tutorial with naval combat with air factors.
A tutorial with naval movement.
A tutorial with naval movement resulting in perhaps several battles in several sea areas.
Tutorials that demonstrate some of the mechanics of the game such as ending the turn. These would not require the user to do very much. Perhaps it would be useful to ask the user questions such as 'In this situation, what rolls of the dice will end the turn."
A tutorial that introduces production.
A tutorial that introduces production gearing limits.
A tutorial that allows the user to do the production and the rest of the game plays itself. (THIS MIGHT BE AN INTERESTING SUBGAME.)
There might also be tutorials that allow the user to manage:
* all of the land units while the navy and air is automatic.
* all of the air units while the navy and land is automatic.
* all of the naval units while the air and land is automatic.
Again, some of these might be intersting subgames.
To me, the most effective tutorials have been Starcraft, Warcraft, and Rise Of Nations. Remember that the entire single player 'game' of Starcraft was a tutorial comprising 27 lessons and 3 final exams. When you finished it, you had the mechanics down and were ready to hone your skills.
This game is considerably more detailed than those. I don't think you can have too many tutorials. (Of course spending the resources to create them is another decision.) I think the success of this game in spreading to non-WIFfers will depend on the tutorials.
I hope these ideas are helpful, even if you choose another path.
Bridge is the best wargame going .. Where else can you find a tournament every weekend?
-
Shannon V. OKeets
- Posts: 22165
- Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
- Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
- Contact:
RE: MWiF Tutorial
ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer
I mentioned this several months ago, but I will reiterate it here to generate discussion.
I think that several tutorials are in order. They should start with very small focus and slowly enlarge in scope. As they enlarge in scope, it might be very useful to automate some of the details so the 'lesson' will be easier to think about for the user.
Many of these will be insanely simple, BUT if the user will bite of small chunks, they will be able to digest them better.
The user should be graded after the tutorial based on the desired and likely outcomes. This will be more important in the more complex tutorials. Generic suggestions would be useful. These suggestions might be along the lines of:
* You should spread your defenses out more to prevent a breakthrough.
* You should concentrate your defenses more to be more effective.
For example:
A tutorial with a land combat
A tutorial with a land combat with air support.
A tutorial with a land combat with air and HQ support.
A tutorial with movement ending up in combat.
A tutorial with air to air combat.
A tutorial with offensive movement that results in several land combats and perhaps air to air combat on one of them.
A tutorial with defensive movement to prepare for an impending attack.
A tutorial with naval combat.
A tutorial with naval combat with air factors.
A tutorial with naval movement.
A tutorial with naval movement resulting in perhaps several battles in several sea areas.
Tutorials that demonstrate some of the mechanics of the game such as ending the turn. These would not require the user to do very much. Perhaps it would be useful to ask the user questions such as 'In this situation, what rolls of the dice will end the turn."
A tutorial that introduces production.
A tutorial that introduces production gearing limits.
A tutorial that allows the user to do the production and the rest of the game plays itself. (THIS MIGHT BE AN INTERESTING SUBGAME.)
There might also be tutorials that allow the user to manage:
* all of the land units while the navy and air is automatic.
* all of the air units while the navy and land is automatic.
* all of the naval units while the air and land is automatic.
Again, some of these might be intersting subgames.
To me, the most effective tutorials have been Starcraft, Warcraft, and Rise Of Nations. Remember that the entire single player 'game' of Starcraft was a tutorial comprising 27 lessons and 3 final exams. When you finished it, you had the mechanics down and were ready to hone your skills.
This game is considerably more detailed than those. I don't think you can have too many tutorials. (Of course spending the resources to create them is another decision.) I think the success of this game in spreading to non-WIFfers will depend on the tutorials.
I hope these ideas are helpful, even if you choose another path.
Your list of tutorials is very good.
The mechanics of presenting them to the player could be done several ways.
1 - player watches (see the pretty blinking lights)
2 - player follows instructions (press this key now!)
3 - player explores (if you do XXX now, YYY will happen)
4 - player is tested (try to make this happen; what is the answer to this question)
Rather than commit to a single style of mechanics, I think a combination might work out best.
Personally, I do not like #4 - I have taken quite enough tests in my lifetime already, thank you. I also find #2 grating on my nerves, but in combination with #3 can be used effectively. Even #4 has a role to play just as long as taking and passing the tests isn't required. It can be used by the player to meaure his understanding of the topic being presented.
There are considerations of what it will take to prepare the tutorials. Those can be addressed later and shouldn't be taken into consideration when trying to figure out information content and presentation. Once we know what we think would be great, we can review what we can afford (in time and effort).
Steve
Perfection is an elusive goal.
Perfection is an elusive goal.
-
SamuraiProgrmmr
- Posts: 416
- Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:15 am
- Location: NW Tennessee
RE: MWiF Tutorial
I agree that mandatory taking or passing the tests do not make for a tutorial that anyone would enjoy.
The key point is that there are some game mechanics issues that will be fairly automatic in how they are handled. Even though there are no explicit actions to be perfomed, the player needs to understand them in order to plan for them. In these situations, presenting a situation and asking the player to infer the possible outcomes will do two things:
1) Give the new player confidence that they understand the situation.
2) Expose misunderstandings when the player thinks they understand (much more important).
Perhaps test is the wrong word. However, being in a situation where the tutorial can tell the player that they (a) did a good job or (b) may need to improve would hopefully be welcome to a player who is trying to decipher an overwhelming game system.
I agree wholeheartedly that none of the tutorials should be mandatory. Those who will use them will appreciate them. Others will ignore them. Since this is an entertainment product, that is exactly as it should be.
While I am at it, here are a few more ideas for tutorials:
* Arrange this combat to maximize the chances of killing 3 units (i.e. How to throw a soak-off attack)
* Arrange these air missions to maximize the chances of clearing a bomber to the target (i.e. how to engage CAP advantageously)
* Land combat with bombardment factors.
* Setup and execute a sea to land invasion.
* Arrange your units to maintain a garrison while throwing an attack on a nearby theatre.
* Lend lease a unit
* Understand the implications of US Entry Actions - could be (dare I say it) a quiz.
* Maneuver to open a supply line.
* Combat to open a supply line.
* Something for strategic movment.
* Overrun attacks
* Choose between blitz and normal
* Breakthrough advance movment.
(Some of these may be combined into the same tutorials but these subjects probably need to be touched on.)
Thanks again for allowing us to have so much input!
Dean
The key point is that there are some game mechanics issues that will be fairly automatic in how they are handled. Even though there are no explicit actions to be perfomed, the player needs to understand them in order to plan for them. In these situations, presenting a situation and asking the player to infer the possible outcomes will do two things:
1) Give the new player confidence that they understand the situation.
2) Expose misunderstandings when the player thinks they understand (much more important).
Perhaps test is the wrong word. However, being in a situation where the tutorial can tell the player that they (a) did a good job or (b) may need to improve would hopefully be welcome to a player who is trying to decipher an overwhelming game system.
I agree wholeheartedly that none of the tutorials should be mandatory. Those who will use them will appreciate them. Others will ignore them. Since this is an entertainment product, that is exactly as it should be.
While I am at it, here are a few more ideas for tutorials:
* Arrange this combat to maximize the chances of killing 3 units (i.e. How to throw a soak-off attack)
* Arrange these air missions to maximize the chances of clearing a bomber to the target (i.e. how to engage CAP advantageously)
* Land combat with bombardment factors.
* Setup and execute a sea to land invasion.
* Arrange your units to maintain a garrison while throwing an attack on a nearby theatre.
* Lend lease a unit
* Understand the implications of US Entry Actions - could be (dare I say it) a quiz.
* Maneuver to open a supply line.
* Combat to open a supply line.
* Something for strategic movment.
* Overrun attacks
* Choose between blitz and normal
* Breakthrough advance movment.
(Some of these may be combined into the same tutorials but these subjects probably need to be touched on.)
Thanks again for allowing us to have so much input!
Dean
Bridge is the best wargame going .. Where else can you find a tournament every weekend?
-
Shannon V. OKeets
- Posts: 22165
- Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
- Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
- Contact:
RE: MWiF Tutorial
If I can get the product design past all you guys, without large smoking holes in vital parts, the product should do well on the marketplace.
Or at least that is my theory.
One of my strongest motivations it that I absolutely detest writing code that is never used. I have spent, in total, probably years of my life doing that - what a waste of time and energy. If the end product gives players pleasure, then I will be extremely happy.
Or at least that is my theory.
One of my strongest motivations it that I absolutely detest writing code that is never used. I have spent, in total, probably years of my life doing that - what a waste of time and energy. If the end product gives players pleasure, then I will be extremely happy.
Steve
Perfection is an elusive goal.
Perfection is an elusive goal.
RE: MWiF Tutorial
A tutorial on a complex game should be broken down into parts that a player can go back and look over again. I like to get the basics and jump into a small game, then come back and learn more before I start a bigger game. I find that if I have to go through a long tutorial before I start the game I forget or don't yet understand the finer points the designer is trying to get across.
"It is better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air than in the air wishing you were on the ground."
RE: MWiF Tutorial
If tutorial's also include a small movie of play mechanics, players could easily review those steps whenever needed. If it is accessible during play; then, a player wondering how to do such and such opens the appropriate tutorial movie to refresh their memory and off they go. Most games are not as complex as WiF and would not need such a tool. However, with the myriad amounts of rules and procedures in WiF an "instant recall" of help would be of immense help to newcomers.
Integrity is what you do when nobody is watching.
-
Shannon V. OKeets
- Posts: 22165
- Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
- Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
- Contact:
RE: MWiF Tutorial
ORIGINAL: abj9562
If tutorial's also include a small movie of play mechanics, players could easily review those steps whenever needed. If it is accessible during play; then, a player wondering how to do such and such opens the appropriate tutorial movie to refresh their memory and off they go. Most games are not as complex as WiF and would not need such a tool. However, with the myriad amounts of rules and procedures in WiF an "instant recall" of help would be of immense help to newcomers.
I like both of your suggestions here very much.
Steve
Perfection is an elusive goal.
Perfection is an elusive goal.
-
Glen Felzien
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Sun May 21, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Swan Hills, Alberta, CDN
RE: MWiF Tutorial
Food for thought regarding the format the tutorial is presented in:
I like SamuraiProgrammer's detail and c92nichj suggestion of using the Spanish Civil War or some other "game in progress" as Steve suggested. So to combine all this why not have the tutorial cover a single game turn step for step.
Have the turn cover a predetermined number of impulses. Each impulse would cover very specific items to convey a very specific lesson. Each impulse would be progressively more complex as certain issues are covered. So, if the turn had 7 impulses, for example, Samurai's list could be broken up into these 7 impluses and the player would do a combination of:
So from determining initative through the impluses to completing production and ending the turn, each step can convey particular lessons which increase in complexity. Game interface can be discussed at or near the beginning. Basic land unit movement covered in the first impluse etc. I feel that this approach would allow the flexability of using a variety of teaching tools and the format itself will assist the player to learn the various functions within the game turn. I think a Spanish Civil War would be a good scenario because it has all the elements required to teach the complete system: land/air/sea/production/placing reinforcements etc and yet only has two sides, low counter density and a small map area.
I like SamuraiProgrammer's detail and c92nichj suggestion of using the Spanish Civil War or some other "game in progress" as Steve suggested. So to combine all this why not have the tutorial cover a single game turn step for step.
Have the turn cover a predetermined number of impulses. Each impulse would cover very specific items to convey a very specific lesson. Each impulse would be progressively more complex as certain issues are covered. So, if the turn had 7 impulses, for example, Samurai's list could be broken up into these 7 impluses and the player would do a combination of:
1 - player watches (see the pretty blinking lights)
2 - player follows instructions (press this key now!)
3 - player explores (if you do XXX now, YYY will happen)
4 - player is tested (try to make this happen; what is the answer to this question)
So from determining initative through the impluses to completing production and ending the turn, each step can convey particular lessons which increase in complexity. Game interface can be discussed at or near the beginning. Basic land unit movement covered in the first impluse etc. I feel that this approach would allow the flexability of using a variety of teaching tools and the format itself will assist the player to learn the various functions within the game turn. I think a Spanish Civil War would be a good scenario because it has all the elements required to teach the complete system: land/air/sea/production/placing reinforcements etc and yet only has two sides, low counter density and a small map area.
Glen
RE: MWiF Tutorial
i like most of the suggestions presented except one
Please no tests, after all who wants to purchase a game and have to pass a quiz or test. Life is too full of that already. Additionally, alienating customers is usually not a good thing to do and this seems to be a point some people may be frustrated with. However if the guadacanal and/or barbarossa scenarios are used then leaving them open to play the scenario after tutorial completition is a good idea. This would allow for hidden knowledge testing without being over bearing or intrusive. Furthermore, playing out the tutorial scenario as an option allows players to evaluate for themselves if they need to repeat the tutorial or not and does not put judgements or value assignments from the author/publisher.
Please no tests, after all who wants to purchase a game and have to pass a quiz or test. Life is too full of that already. Additionally, alienating customers is usually not a good thing to do and this seems to be a point some people may be frustrated with. However if the guadacanal and/or barbarossa scenarios are used then leaving them open to play the scenario after tutorial completition is a good idea. This would allow for hidden knowledge testing without being over bearing or intrusive. Furthermore, playing out the tutorial scenario as an option allows players to evaluate for themselves if they need to repeat the tutorial or not and does not put judgements or value assignments from the author/publisher.
Integrity is what you do when nobody is watching.
RE: MWiF Tutorial
I would also agree there should be no tests.
But stand back and asess just what the purpose(s) of a tutorial are as well as the scope. Like the game it represents, it should cover both strategic as well as tactical events/information. For example, the strategic nature of should be to cover/convey knowledge in terms of overall game play. What happens in what order. Then the tactical portions should focus on how to perform specific (sub) tasks. These don't need to be combined into one grand tutorial but rather a semi-lose grouping that can either be followed in a specific order or selected one at a time.
If any given tutorial is long in duration, the ability to save wouldn't be a bad thing.
But stand back and asess just what the purpose(s) of a tutorial are as well as the scope. Like the game it represents, it should cover both strategic as well as tactical events/information. For example, the strategic nature of should be to cover/convey knowledge in terms of overall game play. What happens in what order. Then the tactical portions should focus on how to perform specific (sub) tasks. These don't need to be combined into one grand tutorial but rather a semi-lose grouping that can either be followed in a specific order or selected one at a time.
If any given tutorial is long in duration, the ability to save wouldn't be a bad thing.
-
Shannon V. OKeets
- Posts: 22165
- Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
- Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
- Contact:
RE: MWiF Tutorial
While in concept the Spanish Civil war would be a good choice, in practice it isn't really feasible. One of the hardest things to do from the programming side is to get all the data correct for a scenario. Basically, the program wants every hex and every country 'properly' set up. All the units too. Who is at war, has trade alliances with others, who controls what units, who is aligned with whom, and dozens of little details about units. This list is quite formidable.
I suggest that we work with Barbarossa and Guadalcanal. It would be nice to have one (like the Spanish Civil War) that is very small scale; these two are the smallest of the 11 scenarios in MWIF . All the others involve more countries, all of which need to be cycled through to complete one impulse.
Aside from that, the other suggestions being made here are sketching out a nice design for the tutorials. If I can get to it tomorrow, I'll try to summarize them all.
I suggest that we work with Barbarossa and Guadalcanal. It would be nice to have one (like the Spanish Civil War) that is very small scale; these two are the smallest of the 11 scenarios in MWIF . All the others involve more countries, all of which need to be cycled through to complete one impulse.
Aside from that, the other suggestions being made here are sketching out a nice design for the tutorials. If I can get to it tomorrow, I'll try to summarize them all.
Steve
Perfection is an elusive goal.
Perfection is an elusive goal.
RE: MWiF Tutorial
ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I suggest that we work with Barbarossa and Guadalcanal. It would be nice to have one (like the Spanish Civil War) that is very small scale; these two are the smallest of the 11 scenarios in MWIF . All the others involve more countries, all of which need to be cycled through to complete one impulse.
One possibility for a little tutorial would be the 1939 invasion of Poland. You could use the parts of the data you already have from the Global War Scenario. It is a good basic start for the land and air support rules. Difficulty levels can be incorporated with a German force of 1/3, 1/2, or 2/3 of his total against Poland, although it might be better if this was just set for the player. It is the first land attack of the war and everyone has to weather it, either as an attacker or defender at sometime. An expansion to this could be the inclusion of the French border. The AIA could conduct attacks there if weak held. The player could be rated by how long it takes to conquer Poland.
RE: MWiF Tutorial
We must not lose sight of the objective of the tutorial. Regardless of the scenario selected or the style of learning experience, it is important to ensure that the player is given the opportunity to learn the ropes of MWiF. To that end I'm interested in tapping into the experience of the newbies on the recently posted list of MWiF testers and documenting their learning experience.
* What were the hard concepts in MWiF?
* Were there any 'light-bulb' moments? What triggered them?
* What point did the other player's explanations of the rules become too confusing?
etc etc.
* What were the hard concepts in MWiF?
* Were there any 'light-bulb' moments? What triggered them?
* What point did the other player's explanations of the rules become too confusing?
etc etc.
/Greyshaft